Two must-read posts on Romney's disastrous Massachusetts health insurance plan below. Romney is trying to blame the plan's skyrocketing costs entirely on the current administration. Even if Romney has a good sense of the business world, his health plan disaster demonstrates his lack of foresight on the inevitable course of big-government bureaucracies. Needless to say, the mainstream media and establishment Republicans are ignoring this huge black mark in Romney's record.
I. Gregg Jackson, PunditReview:
No Wonder Romney Never Discusses His Healthcare Plan…
Shikha Dalmia, senior analyst at the Reason Foundation has the latest figures on RomneyCare, and they don’t look pretty....
I have said many times that Mr. Romney’s healthcare plan that he signed on his way out the door in Massachusetts (billed as his “signature accomplishment” at the time) was inherently anti-competitive/anti-free market and would inevitably lead to contrived scarcities, inflated costs, and higher prices for consumers- the same things that always result from socialistic/command style systems- not to mention that inconvenient little fact that it established $50 dollars a pop abortions as a “healthcare benefit.”With all the talk about Romney being the only “economic conservative” it bears mentioning that his actual record tells a very different story.
II. Tom Blumer, BizzyBlog:
‘Universal’ Health Care ‘Terminated’? Yes, in California. But RomneyCare Is Alive in Massachusetts (and WE Are Paying for It)
Okay, I get that California is our most populous state, the land of uber-liberalism, and deserving of a shot or two when it tries, and fortunately fails, to pass something dumb.
But if the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal is going to exult in the Golden State’s inability to enact a “universal” health-care plan, the least it could do is spend more than about 30 words on the one such plan that exists — especially when it was the brainchild of a GOP presidential candidate now pretending to be a conservative.
I am, of course, referring to Massachusetts, its former governor, Willard Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney, and the already-imploding Commonwealth Care aka RomneyCare....
UPDATE 2: Gregg Jackson just e-mailed and confirmed something I wasn’t sure of. While Mitt Romney is fond of saying how difficult it was to try to govern in a liberal state, the fact is that RomneyCare was an unforced error. No one was clamoring for it, and there citizen or legislative pressure to “do something.” The Mittster apparently felt that “universal” healthcare would be his signature accomplishment, and that referring to it would be a winning strategy in a presidential campaign. Uh, not exactly....
Showing posts with label Mass. Health Plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mass. Health Plan. Show all posts
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 07, 2008
Romney's Socialist Health Care Crackup
Always scheming, here's Romney surrounded by Massachusetts Democrat Socialists, including Teddy Kennedy: "Romney signed the healthcare bill at an elaborate ceremony at Faneuil Hall, but he angered Democrats by vetoing eight sections of it, including a fee on employers that didn't provide health coverage for their workers. The move allowed him to take credit for a landmark law while washing his hands of something resembling a tax increase." - Boston Globe, "The Making of Mitt Romney" (2006).Speaking of health care in Massachusetts, don't miss this update on Romney's health care plan here, from BizzyBlog (drawing on an AP report by Steve LeBlanc yesterday):
The RomneyCare Crackup Is Arriving Early (Heavy Fines and Rationing; Also See the Various Updates) OVERVIEW: After one year, Commonwealth Care (aka RomneyCare) in Massachusetts is imploding even earlier than I predicted, due to “spiraling costs.” Punitive fines of $912 - $1,824 are to be imposed on those who would rather not participate in the so-called “grand experiment.”
In mid-October of last year, well before I learned how Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney is to serve as president, I predicted this (fourth item at link):
Let me be the first to say it: It’s becoming painfully clear (link requires subscription) that Mitt RomneyCare in Massachusetts is blowing up, and will get nothing but worse between now and November 2008. If he’s the nominee, he’ll be playing the same game Michael Dukakis played unsuccessfully in 1988 — covering up the Bay State’s disastrous financial situation. Except this time, the other party controls the Governor’s Office. Deval Patrick will gleefully point to the mess he has inherited, and will then tout HillaryCare II as the “better, more comprehensive” solution.
For this reason alone, I believe that Mitt Romney should NOT be the GOP nominee. Period.
Why is Romney's socialist plan -- which he intended to be his crowning achievement as Governor -- not being targeted by the other Republican candidates? Back in 2005, Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute put it well: ''All around us, we see signs that government mandates and heavy-handed, command-and-control models of providing healthcare don't work and people are abandoning those, and yet the governor seems to be running toward them."
Good for Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee for going after the $50 abortion benefit (which Romney did NOT veto). But now, they should be going after the big-government aspect.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Romney Exposed as Big Government Governor
Time to reread this piece by Carla Howell from last May. Her group has just gotten enough signatures to get an income-tax repeal question on the Massachusetts ballot in 2008 [hooray!]:
"Mitt Romney: Champion of Big Government" [topics Howell addresses:]
"Mitt Romney: Champion of Big Government" [topics Howell addresses:]
- Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes....
- [N]ot only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically.... Romney initiated massive new spending – without any prodding....
- But his grande finale was the worst of all: RomneyCare, Mitt Romney's version of socialized medicine....Ted Kennedy has pushed for socialized medicine for decades. Romney fulfilled his dream. Kennedy lobbied the legislature hard to get Romney's bill passed. It was a Romney-Kennedy alliance....
Monday, June 18, 2007
Romney's Socialist Health Care Starts in Mass.
Romney is no conservative. He is, in fact, a big-government Socialist. Proof: Look at his mandatory health insurance law, which goes into effect July 1. This is the plan that guarantees abortion coverage, and gives Planned Parenthood a role in managing that coverage. From today's Boston Globe:
Countdown to coverage: On July 1, state law requires every adult to have health insurance if affordable plans are available. There are many options. The following is a guide to those choices.
More than 135,000 Massachusetts residents who were previously uninsured have gotten free or subsidized coverage under the state's landmark health insurance law. The initiative established Massachusetts as the first state to require every resident to have coverage. An estimated 250,000 to 350,000 people remain uninsured. The law mandated the expansion of Medicaid and the establishment of new state-subsidized insurance and lower-cost private plans. It also pressed businesses to provide insurance for their workers. Here are answers to some key questions about the insurance requirement. ... [Read more...]
Also in today's Globe, a Swiss advocate for socialized medicine reviews the failings of Switzerland's mandatory health insurance, instituted in 1996. ("The Swiss example on health insurance reform.") This provides a preview of the problems Romney's law will bring to Massachusetts. While "[e]veryone has access to the same comprehensive health insurance coverage, at the same premiums, and to the same quality of medical care" in Switzerland, the author continues:
So, why did a coalition of stakeholders -- mainly the Socialist Party and the Popular Group of Families -- propose in March to vote on a radical restructuring of the system: the adoption of a single payer system?
First, affordability of health coverage has become a major issue, particularly for middle income people who do not qualify for government subsidies. Some Swiss families are paying as much as 16 percent of household income for health coverage.
Second, the availability of high-deductible health plans, promoted as a panacea to the problem of affordability for middle income people by the right wing of the Swiss parliament, has brought no relief from rising health insurance premiums. Premium rates for all types of health insurance, including high-deductible plans, have continued to rise at rates that far exceed general inflation. There is growing concern that people enrolled in these plans are more likely to avoid, skip, or delay needed care because of costs.
Finally, there is growing public concern and distrust of private non profit health insurers. Swiss citizens believe that insurers have profited unduly from the individual mandate, in part by adopting a range of pernicious practices to hunt for good insurance risks and avoid people in poorer health, in violation of Swiss law.
Countdown to coverage: On July 1, state law requires every adult to have health insurance if affordable plans are available. There are many options. The following is a guide to those choices.
More than 135,000 Massachusetts residents who were previously uninsured have gotten free or subsidized coverage under the state's landmark health insurance law. The initiative established Massachusetts as the first state to require every resident to have coverage. An estimated 250,000 to 350,000 people remain uninsured. The law mandated the expansion of Medicaid and the establishment of new state-subsidized insurance and lower-cost private plans. It also pressed businesses to provide insurance for their workers. Here are answers to some key questions about the insurance requirement. ... [Read more...]
Also in today's Globe, a Swiss advocate for socialized medicine reviews the failings of Switzerland's mandatory health insurance, instituted in 1996. ("The Swiss example on health insurance reform.") This provides a preview of the problems Romney's law will bring to Massachusetts. While "[e]veryone has access to the same comprehensive health insurance coverage, at the same premiums, and to the same quality of medical care" in Switzerland, the author continues:
So, why did a coalition of stakeholders -- mainly the Socialist Party and the Popular Group of Families -- propose in March to vote on a radical restructuring of the system: the adoption of a single payer system?
First, affordability of health coverage has become a major issue, particularly for middle income people who do not qualify for government subsidies. Some Swiss families are paying as much as 16 percent of household income for health coverage.
Second, the availability of high-deductible health plans, promoted as a panacea to the problem of affordability for middle income people by the right wing of the Swiss parliament, has brought no relief from rising health insurance premiums. Premium rates for all types of health insurance, including high-deductible plans, have continued to rise at rates that far exceed general inflation. There is growing concern that people enrolled in these plans are more likely to avoid, skip, or delay needed care because of costs.
Finally, there is growing public concern and distrust of private non profit health insurers. Swiss citizens believe that insurers have profited unduly from the individual mandate, in part by adopting a range of pernicious practices to hunt for good insurance risks and avoid people in poorer health, in violation of Swiss law.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Slick Willard Romney's "Conservative" Resume
By John Haskins
Here's Mitt Romney's "social conservative" resume that Jay Sekulow (ACLJ), David French (Evangelicals for Mitt), Hugh Hewitt (TownHall.com, Salem Radio), Jim Bopp (Romney pro-life advisor), et al. are boasting about. He accomplished more than our new communist governor --Deval "Baby Doc" Patrick (Janet Reno's accomplice in the Ruby Ridge massacre aftermath) --could have fantasized about accomplishing.
Romney's "Conservative" Resume
Here's Mitt Romney's "social conservative" resume that Jay Sekulow (ACLJ), David French (Evangelicals for Mitt), Hugh Hewitt (TownHall.com, Salem Radio), Jim Bopp (Romney pro-life advisor), et al. are boasting about. He accomplished more than our new communist governor --Deval "Baby Doc" Patrick (Janet Reno's accomplice in the Ruby Ridge massacre aftermath) --could have fantasized about accomplishing.
Romney's "Conservative" Resume
* Compulsory government-run central heath care system, with ... massive boost in funding for abortions, and ... a new and unconstitutional role for Planned Parenthood as a permanent and unelected voice in our government.
* Looking the other way as an extra-constitutional fourth branch of government called the "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" was set up with no accountability to the people.
* Refusal to enforce the parents' rights law when hardened criminal David Parker (really just a regular parent protecting his rights as a father) was taken in handcuffs to a jail cell. Parker's crime: daring to say to the sodomy brainwashers: "Not to my little boy, you don't!" (Come to think of it, not once did Slick Willard enforce the parents' rights law.)
* Increased state funding for pro-homosexuality lessons starting in kindergarten.
* Turning a deaf ear to protests of massive irregularities at the Department of Social Services, which takes children from their parents on the basis of unsubstantiated charges, routinely ignores constitutional rights and due process, places children with homosexuals, and has recklessly put a child in a situation where he or she was killed.
* Ignored fathers' rights activists who are defending men being treated by the courts and the bureacracy like Blacks were treated under Jim Crow laws.
* Illegally "legalized" the sodomy-based family.
So, our new communist governor starts off with most of his objectives already accomplished by Slick Willard (the "pro-family, constitutionalist" Republican). So Gov. Patrick can now turn the political, social, and constitutional ratchets even further to the left than the Founding Fathers ever could have imagined in their wildest nightmares.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Romney Burning Through His Millions
After personally receiving 8 or 10 campaign mailings from the Romney campaign already, it's not surprising to see the Boston Globe this morning: "Romney money going fast" (4-14-07). The latest mailing was a glossy photo of the Romney family with a response page headed "Family Photo Confirmation" and we're asked to check off this statement along with the donation amount:
"Thank you so much for your family photo. It's good to know that someone who asks for my trust on such important matters has the family background to support his words!"
But one look at that family photo, with those adorable grandchildren, brings to mind the incongruity of Romney's past (and recent, and current?) support of abortion "rights". How could a loving husband, father, and grandfather who is religiously grounded ever have subscribed to such a horrific position?
Back to Romney's high "burn rate" on his campaign spending:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney burned through more than half of the $20.7 million he raised for his presidential bid in the first three months of this year ... Romney's fund-raising total placed him first in the GOP presidential money race in the first quarter of 2007. But his spending left him with $11.9 million in the bank at the beginning of this month -- a figure that includes a $2.35 million loan Romney himself floated to his campaign....
Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the campaign's early expenditures have helped build a fund-raising operation that will allow Romney to bring in far greater sums in the months to come. "We're building a national campaign and investing the resources needed to sustain its growth and its continued success," Madden said. "The resources we've invested in building the grass-roots network and the fund-raising infrastructure are designed to yield a greater return."
Also this week, we noticed in the Weekly Standard that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina was unusual for his early endorsement of Romney:
As for the future of the party, while most politicians have refrained from taking sides in the '08 primaries this early, DeMint has already pitched his stake in Mitt Romney's tent. He calls Romney a "values-based conservative," saying "no one stands taller" in terms of character and record. DeMint especially praises Romney's original health care plan.
That would be Romney's socialist "universal" health insurance plan that greatly expands taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, and which is reported to have a serious new problem every week. For example, the Globe just reported (4-12-07):
To remove the threat of a public backlash, the state plans to exempt nearly 20 percent of uninsured adults from the state's new requirement that everyone have health insurance. The proposal, expected to be approved by a state board today, is based on calculations that even the lowest-cost insurance would not be affordable for an estimated 60,000 people with low and moderate incomes who do not qualify for state subsidies. [So the poorest citizens still won't be covered, and Romney's promise of a workable "universal" plan falls flat.]
And back to DeMint, no mention by the Weekly Standard that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave DeMint's campaign fund a donation of $5,000 in 2006 ... even though DeMint's not up for re-election till 2010. Of course, South Carolina is a very important Republic primary state. From the Boston Globe (12-24-06):
The stated purpose of the Commonwealth PAC is to elect GOP candidates, but its indirect goal of raising Romney's profile and amassing chits, or at the very least good will, is apparent from an analysis of PAC spending this year. For example, the PAC chipped in $5,000 to the campaign committee of freshman US Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who wasn't on the ballot this year and won't be until 2010.
Another good business investment.
"Thank you so much for your family photo. It's good to know that someone who asks for my trust on such important matters has the family background to support his words!"
But one look at that family photo, with those adorable grandchildren, brings to mind the incongruity of Romney's past (and recent, and current?) support of abortion "rights". How could a loving husband, father, and grandfather who is religiously grounded ever have subscribed to such a horrific position?
Back to Romney's high "burn rate" on his campaign spending:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney burned through more than half of the $20.7 million he raised for his presidential bid in the first three months of this year ... Romney's fund-raising total placed him first in the GOP presidential money race in the first quarter of 2007. But his spending left him with $11.9 million in the bank at the beginning of this month -- a figure that includes a $2.35 million loan Romney himself floated to his campaign....
Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the campaign's early expenditures have helped build a fund-raising operation that will allow Romney to bring in far greater sums in the months to come. "We're building a national campaign and investing the resources needed to sustain its growth and its continued success," Madden said. "The resources we've invested in building the grass-roots network and the fund-raising infrastructure are designed to yield a greater return."
Also this week, we noticed in the Weekly Standard that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina was unusual for his early endorsement of Romney:
As for the future of the party, while most politicians have refrained from taking sides in the '08 primaries this early, DeMint has already pitched his stake in Mitt Romney's tent. He calls Romney a "values-based conservative," saying "no one stands taller" in terms of character and record. DeMint especially praises Romney's original health care plan.
That would be Romney's socialist "universal" health insurance plan that greatly expands taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, and which is reported to have a serious new problem every week. For example, the Globe just reported (4-12-07):
To remove the threat of a public backlash, the state plans to exempt nearly 20 percent of uninsured adults from the state's new requirement that everyone have health insurance. The proposal, expected to be approved by a state board today, is based on calculations that even the lowest-cost insurance would not be affordable for an estimated 60,000 people with low and moderate incomes who do not qualify for state subsidies. [So the poorest citizens still won't be covered, and Romney's promise of a workable "universal" plan falls flat.]
And back to DeMint, no mention by the Weekly Standard that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave DeMint's campaign fund a donation of $5,000 in 2006 ... even though DeMint's not up for re-election till 2010. Of course, South Carolina is a very important Republic primary state. From the Boston Globe (12-24-06):
The stated purpose of the Commonwealth PAC is to elect GOP candidates, but its indirect goal of raising Romney's profile and amassing chits, or at the very least good will, is apparent from an analysis of PAC spending this year. For example, the PAC chipped in $5,000 to the campaign committee of freshman US Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who wasn't on the ballot this year and won't be until 2010.
Another good business investment.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Romney, Straw Polls, and Deceit
Janet Folger, nationally syndicated talk show host, has a good piece in today's WorldNetDaily on the nonsense of straw polls, "Straw poll and brick values." (And see our report, "Romney campaign buys victory in CPAC presidential straw poll.") Folger:
And now the "Republicans" everyone's talking about. The RINOs (Republican in Name Only)....
And then there's Mitt Romney, making a convenient flip from his ardent pro-abortion stance just in time to run for president. It just seems to me that if you really come to the realization that dismembering children is not good public policy, you'd remember not to FUND it with taxpayer dollars in your state health-care plan … after such a conversion. Oh yeah, suddenly he's pro-marriage, too. So why did Romney publicly beat up on pro-marriage activist Brian Camenker last month? If that's how he treats people on our side of the issue, that doesn't bode well for future White House relations. And finally, mandating that homosexual "marriage licenses" be issued without any change in the law requiring it (in direct violation of the Massachusetts State Constitution) isn’t very convincing, either.
But here's what I find even more troubling. Our conservative leaders who are willing to flush away everything we stand for to "get on the bandwagon" and support one of these up front. I know the "tent" is big and everything, but is it really too much to ask for a candidate from the Republican Party that actually agrees with the party platform? Oh, wait a minute; there are candidates like that in the race. You just don't hear much about them.... Read more.
And now the "Republicans" everyone's talking about. The RINOs (Republican in Name Only)....
And then there's Mitt Romney, making a convenient flip from his ardent pro-abortion stance just in time to run for president. It just seems to me that if you really come to the realization that dismembering children is not good public policy, you'd remember not to FUND it with taxpayer dollars in your state health-care plan … after such a conversion. Oh yeah, suddenly he's pro-marriage, too. So why did Romney publicly beat up on pro-marriage activist Brian Camenker last month? If that's how he treats people on our side of the issue, that doesn't bode well for future White House relations. And finally, mandating that homosexual "marriage licenses" be issued without any change in the law requiring it (in direct violation of the Massachusetts State Constitution) isn’t very convincing, either.
But here's what I find even more troubling. Our conservative leaders who are willing to flush away everything we stand for to "get on the bandwagon" and support one of these up front. I know the "tent" is big and everything, but is it really too much to ask for a candidate from the Republican Party that actually agrees with the party platform? Oh, wait a minute; there are candidates like that in the race. You just don't hear much about them.... Read more.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Wall Street Journal: Romney Flip-Flops on "Gay Marriage"
The Wall Street Journal has serious doubts about Mitt Romney. We highlighted their editorial trashing his Massachusetts health insurance plan -- which he was so proud of, until about a month ago. Now, WSJ is voicing hesitation on his free market bona fides:
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, has had some success exploiting conservative unease with Mr. McCain. He has shown he can win votes in a blue state, and he was successful both as a capitalist and as manager of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.
However, he too is something of an empty policy slate. The former business consultant made a big deal of the health-care "reform" he steered through the Massachusetts legislature last year, and we suppose he deserves credit for trying. But he oversold the results--to the applause of the national health-care lobby--and imposed an insurance mandate without reforming the state insurance market.
As it unfolds, this law is turning out to be far from a free-market success. And so now Mr. Romney is distancing himself from it--never mind that he upbraided his critics last year for not understanding its virtues. The episode suggests a thin political skin and perhaps a too malleable policy core.
Also, WSJ today noted that Romney's not only a flip-flopper on abortion and gay rights, but also has changed his position on gay marriage ("Election 2008: A Crowded Field Forms Early"):
Mitt Romney
Strengths: The Republican governor from liberal Massachusetts brokered a bipartisan universal health-care initiative last year. The Bain Capital founder's $6.5 million in pledges last month have built early credibility.
Weaknesses: The fact that Mr. Romney is a Mormon could hurt his support among evangelicals. Attempts to woo social conservatives have been hampered by shifting positions on gay marriage and abortion rights.
Hmm... did the WSJ really mean to say this? "Gay marriage" rather than "gay rights"? A big fan of the editorial page told us, "YES -- they have the best editors, and they probably did pay attention to MassResistance's report."
Well, even if it was a slip, here's the truth about Mitt Romney: HE HAS NOT BEEN CONSISTENT ON HIS SUPPORT FOR REAL MARRIAGE. First, in 2001-2, Romney opposed a proposed constitutional amendment in Massachusetts, which would have banned "gay marriage" and also "civil unions". Romney said that was "too extreme". Understand that he thinks we need to respect all citizens, no matter what choices they may make in their lives. So apparently, in 2001-2, Romney supported civil unions. And if that wasn't the basis for opposing the amendment, maybe he just didn't want to ban "gay marriage"? We ask his Mr. Romney to clarify his opposition to the 2002 Mass. marriage amendment. And further, why didn't he make a stink then that the Legislature unconstitutionally threw it into the dustbin? (He became Governor in January 2003, days after that happened.)
Then in 2005-6, suddenly Romney favored the new proposed Mass. marriage amendment, which would NOT ban civil unions, and which would let stand the existing "gay marriages" (since May 2004).
So first he's against a marriage amendment, then he's for one. Is this a flip-flop? Or -- is there some consistency? Romney seems to want to keep open the possibility for civil unions in both instances. Interesting.
Hello, Romney campaign. Please explain!
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, has had some success exploiting conservative unease with Mr. McCain. He has shown he can win votes in a blue state, and he was successful both as a capitalist and as manager of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.
However, he too is something of an empty policy slate. The former business consultant made a big deal of the health-care "reform" he steered through the Massachusetts legislature last year, and we suppose he deserves credit for trying. But he oversold the results--to the applause of the national health-care lobby--and imposed an insurance mandate without reforming the state insurance market.
As it unfolds, this law is turning out to be far from a free-market success. And so now Mr. Romney is distancing himself from it--never mind that he upbraided his critics last year for not understanding its virtues. The episode suggests a thin political skin and perhaps a too malleable policy core.
Also, WSJ today noted that Romney's not only a flip-flopper on abortion and gay rights, but also has changed his position on gay marriage ("Election 2008: A Crowded Field Forms Early"):
Mitt Romney
Strengths: The Republican governor from liberal Massachusetts brokered a bipartisan universal health-care initiative last year. The Bain Capital founder's $6.5 million in pledges last month have built early credibility.
Weaknesses: The fact that Mr. Romney is a Mormon could hurt his support among evangelicals. Attempts to woo social conservatives have been hampered by shifting positions on gay marriage and abortion rights.
Hmm... did the WSJ really mean to say this? "Gay marriage" rather than "gay rights"? A big fan of the editorial page told us, "YES -- they have the best editors, and they probably did pay attention to MassResistance's report."
Well, even if it was a slip, here's the truth about Mitt Romney: HE HAS NOT BEEN CONSISTENT ON HIS SUPPORT FOR REAL MARRIAGE. First, in 2001-2, Romney opposed a proposed constitutional amendment in Massachusetts, which would have banned "gay marriage" and also "civil unions". Romney said that was "too extreme". Understand that he thinks we need to respect all citizens, no matter what choices they may make in their lives. So apparently, in 2001-2, Romney supported civil unions. And if that wasn't the basis for opposing the amendment, maybe he just didn't want to ban "gay marriage"? We ask his Mr. Romney to clarify his opposition to the 2002 Mass. marriage amendment. And further, why didn't he make a stink then that the Legislature unconstitutionally threw it into the dustbin? (He became Governor in January 2003, days after that happened.)
Then in 2005-6, suddenly Romney favored the new proposed Mass. marriage amendment, which would NOT ban civil unions, and which would let stand the existing "gay marriages" (since May 2004).
So first he's against a marriage amendment, then he's for one. Is this a flip-flop? Or -- is there some consistency? Romney seems to want to keep open the possibility for civil unions in both instances. Interesting.
Hello, Romney campaign. Please explain!
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Romney's New Idea: Blame Others for Failure
Flip-flopping on issues is getting old. Time to try denying responsbility for things gone wrong. The Boston Globe reports today that "Romney distances self from Mass. health plan."
Romney can't exactly flip-flop on socialistic government-mandated health care insurance plans, since he was a bragging prime mover behind the new law in Massachusetts. But now that there's a cancerous new bureaucracy growing (with over-compensated executives), higher than expected subscription "fees" (read: taxes), and new definitions of "adequate coverage" -- all this bad news sending shockwaves through the state -- Romney is now trying to wriggle out of his responsibility in creating this monster. Now, instead of bragging about his brilliant new plan, he's trying to blame the Legislature for anything that's going wrong.
But denying responsibility for crafting and signing a new law will be a lot harder than flip-flopping on an issue.
Romney secured the support of the "conservative" Heritage Foundation in helping design the plan (after giving them a hefty $25,000 donation.) And until recently he has been very proud of his revolutionary approach to controlling people's and businesses' decisions on health coverage. How odd, then, that he didn't refer to his health insurance law in his recent speech at the Heritage Foundation.
Is this man qualified to be President if he couldn't imagine how this legislation would play out? He's certainly no conservative if he thinks mandatory health insurance, creating a new bureaucracy in the most corrupt state in the country, and lots of undefined requirements in a law are good things. Even the Wall Street Journal slammed Romney's health plan in an editorial last week! (a "ballyhooed health care [reform that is apolicy blunder] that won't stand scrutiny in court, much less in the marketplace"). No wonder he's trying to blame any emerging problems on the Legislature! Is he really the genius businessman and visionary manager we've been told he is?
[From the Globe:]
The healthcare law requires all Massachusetts adults to obtain health coverage that meets minimum standards as of July 1 or pay a penalty, unless they prove they cannot afford it. Businesses with more than 10 employees but without "fair and reasonable" health insurance must pay an annual fee.
Romney introduced the idea in late 2004; after the Legislature made its own adjustments, Romney signed it into law last April. The plan was phased in during the summer and fall, and about 100,000 of the state's approximately 400,000 uninsured are covered so far....
Earlier this week, however, the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans estimated that more than 200,000 residents who already have health insurance will have to buy more to meet minimum standards. A state board, called the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, is still reviewing those standards, in part because of estimates that the average uninsured individual would have to pay some $380 a month [almost twice what Romney led us to believe] to obtain health coverage....
Romney has long said that the plan would suffer hiccups. But he now appears ready to blame Democrats for any of the plan's shortcomings, said state Senator Richard T. Moore, an Uxbridge Democrat and one of the plan's main architects.
"That's why he left [office] in a hurry," said Moore, the chairman of the Senate Health Care Financing Committee. "He's setting himself up so he can go either way. If it's a success, he'll take all the credit in the world. If it's a failure, he'll blame everybody else."
Moore said Romney can't hide the fact that he worked closely with Democrats to craft the law, and his administration was responsible for implementing its early stages. "If it doesn't work, it's going to be a shared responsibility," he said....
Meanwhile, from Romney's campaign web site:
Extending Health Insurance to All Americans:
The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms.
Governor Romney: "We can't have as a nation 40 million people -- or, in my state, half a million -- saying, 'I don't have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay." (USA Today, July 5, 2005)
Governor Romney: "It's a conservative idea," says Romney, "insisting that individuals have responsibility for their own health care. I think it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle: insurance for everyone without a tax increase." (USA Today, July 5, 2005)
Romney can't exactly flip-flop on socialistic government-mandated health care insurance plans, since he was a bragging prime mover behind the new law in Massachusetts. But now that there's a cancerous new bureaucracy growing (with over-compensated executives), higher than expected subscription "fees" (read: taxes), and new definitions of "adequate coverage" -- all this bad news sending shockwaves through the state -- Romney is now trying to wriggle out of his responsibility in creating this monster. Now, instead of bragging about his brilliant new plan, he's trying to blame the Legislature for anything that's going wrong.
But denying responsibility for crafting and signing a new law will be a lot harder than flip-flopping on an issue.
Romney secured the support of the "conservative" Heritage Foundation in helping design the plan (after giving them a hefty $25,000 donation.) And until recently he has been very proud of his revolutionary approach to controlling people's and businesses' decisions on health coverage. How odd, then, that he didn't refer to his health insurance law in his recent speech at the Heritage Foundation.
Is this man qualified to be President if he couldn't imagine how this legislation would play out? He's certainly no conservative if he thinks mandatory health insurance, creating a new bureaucracy in the most corrupt state in the country, and lots of undefined requirements in a law are good things. Even the Wall Street Journal slammed Romney's health plan in an editorial last week! (a "ballyhooed health care [reform that is apolicy blunder] that won't stand scrutiny in court, much less in the marketplace"). No wonder he's trying to blame any emerging problems on the Legislature! Is he really the genius businessman and visionary manager we've been told he is?
[From the Globe:]
The healthcare law requires all Massachusetts adults to obtain health coverage that meets minimum standards as of July 1 or pay a penalty, unless they prove they cannot afford it. Businesses with more than 10 employees but without "fair and reasonable" health insurance must pay an annual fee.
Romney introduced the idea in late 2004; after the Legislature made its own adjustments, Romney signed it into law last April. The plan was phased in during the summer and fall, and about 100,000 of the state's approximately 400,000 uninsured are covered so far....
Earlier this week, however, the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans estimated that more than 200,000 residents who already have health insurance will have to buy more to meet minimum standards. A state board, called the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, is still reviewing those standards, in part because of estimates that the average uninsured individual would have to pay some $380 a month [almost twice what Romney led us to believe] to obtain health coverage....
Romney has long said that the plan would suffer hiccups. But he now appears ready to blame Democrats for any of the plan's shortcomings, said state Senator Richard T. Moore, an Uxbridge Democrat and one of the plan's main architects.
"That's why he left [office] in a hurry," said Moore, the chairman of the Senate Health Care Financing Committee. "He's setting himself up so he can go either way. If it's a success, he'll take all the credit in the world. If it's a failure, he'll blame everybody else."
Moore said Romney can't hide the fact that he worked closely with Democrats to craft the law, and his administration was responsible for implementing its early stages. "If it doesn't work, it's going to be a shared responsibility," he said....
Meanwhile, from Romney's campaign web site:
Extending Health Insurance to All Americans:
The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms.
Governor Romney: "We can't have as a nation 40 million people -- or, in my state, half a million -- saying, 'I don't have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay." (USA Today, July 5, 2005)
Governor Romney: "It's a conservative idea," says Romney, "insisting that individuals have responsibility for their own health care. I think it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle: insurance for everyone without a tax increase." (USA Today, July 5, 2005)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)